This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Philip Cross (talk | contribs) at 22:02, 10 December 2013 (rvt, WP:FORUM & potential libel). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:02, 10 December 2013 by Philip Cross (talk | contribs) (rvt, WP:FORUM & potential libel)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Guardian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | The Guardian is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former featured article candidate | |||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:The Guardian/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 18:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC) I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Failed GA status
Failed GA status due to numerous sourcing problems, poor referencing standards, lack of citations in many places all over entire article:
- Bare links and unformatted cites, please format all cites using 'WP:CIT cite templates.
- C. P. Scott subsection = last paragraph is uncited.
- Spanish Civil War subsection = entire section is uncited.
- Post-war subsection = 2nd sentence has a clarification needed tag.
- Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq subsection = there's a citation needed tag.
- Ownership subsection = 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs have several uncited sentences.
- Political stance and editorial opinion subsection = 1st and 2nd paragraph have uncited sentences.
- Publication history subsection = All paragraphs in this subsection have uncited sentences.
- Moving to the Berliner paper format subsection = All paragraphs in this subsection have uncited sentences.
- Reception subsection = 1st paragraph in this section has uncited sentence.
- Regular content and features = Most of this section is largely uncited.
- Online media subsection = End of 2nd paragraph is uncited.
- GuardianFilms subsection = 2nd and 3rd paragraphs have uncited quotes, a big no-no.
- References in popular culture subsection = End of 1st paragraph is uncited.
- Awards subsection = Both sub-sects in this sect have lots of uncited material.
- Editors sect = Totally uncited.
- Notable regular contributors (past and present) sect = Uncited and tagged as problem sect.
- The Guardian News & Media Archive sect = largely uncited.
— Cirt (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Relationship with Google
Has anyone got any more information of the Guardian's relationship with Google as the new UK HQ for Google is only round the corner from the Guardian office in Kings Cross and the comment system on the Guardian website won't let comments about Google that are negative be published. Was there some kind of financial arrangement in June 2012? 188.221.174.94 (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Name
Should the name at the begninig of the article be re-written in small caps, the guardian?--In Allah We Trust (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, not so, because Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Article titles, headings, and sections takes precedence. Philip Cross (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Not sure this is the correct section to post in, but would it be worth mentioning in the lead paragraph the other popular name for the guardian, The Grauniad? (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.178.15 (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is already mentioned in the section "References in popular culture". Not sure it's notable enough to be in the lead paragraph. MFlet1 (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- New York Times is named "The New York Times" — should the Guardian be "The Guardian"? I think not, since their website/paper-print says "Guardian". Informally, I say, "UK Guardian" — Just Asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- May I correct myself? In reading this from another Misplaced Pages page, "Glenn Greenwald (born March 6, 1967) is an American political journalist, lawyer, columnist, blogger, and author. He has been a columnist for the US edition of The Guardian since August 2012. Prior to that he was a columnist for Salon.com and an occasional contributor to The Guardian." and then looking at the top of this page, I see that it is already "The Guardian". How About That ? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- New York Times is named "The New York Times" — should the Guardian be "The Guardian"? I think not, since their website/paper-print says "Guardian". Informally, I say, "UK Guardian" — Just Asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Etymology
I'm pretty sure the name stems from the philosophical question "Who guards the guards?", but cannot find any internet source that explains this. Perhaps someone can dust off some ancient article to this effect from some old forgotten library back in Manchester...? The name is especially apt considering the amount of government scandals that the paper has broken over the years, especially the current one. Would be nice! BigSteve (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
"Guardian" is not an especially uncommon name for a newspaper. It has plenty of metaphorical associations apart from the Latin tag. See https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Guardian_%28disambiguation%29#Newspapers
2601:D:2D00:21B:4C1F:E99C:DA73:6038 (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC) David Harley
NSA Snowden leaks
Seems like the Snowden NSA PRISM leaks deserve a mention, since it's been international news for an entire week or so (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC))
- Yes, and also Glenn Greenwald should be highlighted since he writes for The Guardian and was the main participant. I didn't know Greenwald didn't live in London. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing here about the destruction of hard drives in The Guardian offices as directed by the UK GCHQ agents in August. This should surely be in the article. Alfietucker (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Left Wing
Is it still left wing? I see an awful a lot of right wing columnists/articles now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.76.235 (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say centre-left rather than left-wing, as per (many) previous debates. But they have a policy of also giving a platform to other viewpoints, hence the presence of Simon Jenkins and others. MFlet1 (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
"Left-wing" is a relative description, of course. It used to be seen as the newspaper for teachers, social workers, and academics, which was reflected in the weekly job advertisement supplements. It then added IT and media folk.
With the launch of the online version, it became far better known world-wide and was discovered by large numbers of Americans after 911, when its detached commentary became the object of rage among Republicans Many US conservatives appeared on the now defunct talkboard, and their hostility increased in the year before the Iraq invasion. Whereas every major news source in the US was gung-ho for war, or at least swallowing the Pentagon line on WMDs, the Guardian was cooler and the talkboard was full of very critical analysis of every single claim. More than anything else, this made The Guardian look left-wing to Americans.
It would be more accurate to describe its collective position as ranging from social democratic (Polly Toynbee) to moderate democratic socialism (Roy Hattersley), although there have been times when its coverage of some topics, such as the era of the South American dictators, was to the left of that, with admirable coverage from Richard Gott and Alma Guillermoprieto. At the time, the New York Times was credulously following the State Department line, attributing responsibility for what everyone outside the US knew to be Contra atrocities to the Sandinista government. At least the NYT had the decency to publish short, well-hidden apologies, long after the event.
As for UK conservatives being given space, the long book reviews by Enoch Powell, perhaps the most right-wing Conservative MP of his day, were always a pleasure to read. But none of his policy positions would look especially extreme to today's Republicans and some would look downright socialist. Such things are relative.
2601:D:2D00:21B:4C1F:E99C:DA73:6038 (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)David Harley
Guardian US
I've just moved and updated Guardian America to Guardian US. It could do with some more content and independent refs; and consolidation with what's in this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Categories: